• BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The DEA has basically ignored cannabis for years now. Opioids will keep them employed, don’t worry.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Exactly. They’re basically asking them to do something the DEA can’t do - change the law. What the DEA can do is prioritise what they’re prosecuting and decriminalise weed, which they more or less unofficially have been doing for a few years now.

  • treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    If we’re actually following the scheduling guidelines, can we do psychedelics next?

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I mean, they probably will. They’ve got to offer fucking something other than “I’m not a literal fascist who will black bag and torture you like Trump.” It’s not particularly effective to be like “I know your lives are fucking terrible out there, but I’m not gonna do a god damned thing to really improve them, because why should I have to, my opponent is fucking bonkers and I’m going to hold him over your head abusively, dangling him as a threat that you’ll be punished under unless you vote for me.

      Far easier to threaten us with the spectre of fascism than actually fucking do anything to improve things or, you know, stop fascism.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Can the DEA even reclassify drugs? All the DEA could do, in theory, is decriminalise and not prosecute - which they’re kind of doing already.

    It’s up to Congress to write laws. Maybe the FDA, in this case.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The FDA and HHS have already made their recommendations to reschedule. Now the DEA gets to weigh in, then there’s a period for public comment. After that, IIRC, the FDA makes a final decision. The current recommendation is to Schedule III from Schedule I.

      but that’s just for rescheduling on a federal level.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thanks, that’s a good overview.

        Schedule III is still too harsh, imo, though.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          agreed. Schedule IV or descheduling altogether would be most fitting. The fact that it’s a legitimate medication for many conditions and is still the subject of a great deal of research muddies the waters a bit, however.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Unfortunately the DEA is the agency that makes the final decision. I have less faith in them to do the right thing on this than the FDA. Though the new head Biden appointed specifically called for a review of the scheduling, which could be a signal the DEA is receptive to dropping it. Schedule I for marijuana is a joke. I mean, you could make an argument caffeine is more dangerous. Even just lowering it to another level could make a big difference in the states it’s legal.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Unfortunately the DEA is the agency that makes the final decision.

          ok, i just looked into this, and you’re correct. my mistake.

          Regarding their stance… i think this could go either way, and it’s most likely to be a bit of a compromise, leaning into the FDA and HHS recommendation, as, historically, they’ve kid of ridden the fence on the issue, often giving a token, “we enforce the law,” type of answer when questioned about their stance on the subject.

  • Bitflip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Criminalization is a multi-million dollar industry and greed is more powerful than our laws.

  • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s really bizarre the cops and bureaucrats apparently get to decide law to this extent.

    • Space_Racer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It has some trade-offs, the same rules allow the DEA and ATF to make rules but also allows things like the EPA to function. It really is a double edged sword.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah the main trade off is federal organizations have become so determinate that pretty soon, and it’s come close already, they’re just gonna support a dictator enable their internal politics.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          This just isn’t true. Federal agencies are made up of regular people who work a regular job for mediocre pay, and a dictator is much more likely to do away with that job (or even worse, as we’ve seen historically. Purges aren’t just a fun way of saying “vacation”).

          Republicans have even said in the recent past (Rick Perry comes to mind, but pretty sure Trump has said similar) that they will do away with major regulatory agencies if they’re elected (such as FDA, EPA, DOE, etc). What do you think happens to all of those workers when a Republican decides to shut down their agency? They’re out of a job.

          So no, they don’t support it. They just don’t really have any say in it either way.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.

      In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?

      They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.

      I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.

  • NGC2346@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    They are now seeing how profitable the plant is, so they want to change the narrative. Don’t be fooled.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Abolish the DEA, legalize all drugs, and put education/treatment programs in place to help people. Repair lives instead of destroying them. That should always be the goal.